I don't think people see the BAN as a shaming thing, to the contrary, they think they are being cool about it, some people like to brag about being assholes or feel they are popular if they cause a chaos around & get known. But then there are times where there's a special snowflake that feels a bit threatened by even a little word you might have slipped out of your mind, & BAAAMMM!! REPORTTEDD!! & there goes the banning too.

I don't think they should have to give a reason at least no publically. It probably wouldn't hurt to let the banned person know why they are banned though so they won't repeat the same mistakes in the future but they don't have to. Usually each site has clearly stated rules and if you break them then you're subject to a ban. I definitely do not feel they should post the reason why someone is banned for the public to see and probably should just issue a statement to the person who is banned that they were indeed banned. If it were my choice I probably wouldn't even tell them why unless they write asking for a reason that they were banned. It should all be handled privately though.

I don't think they should have to give a reason at least no publically. It probably wouldn't hurt to let the banned person know why they are banned though so they won't repeat the same mistakes in the future but they don't have to. Usually each site has clearly stated rules and if you break them then you're subject to a ban. I definitely do not feel they should post the reason why someone is banned for the public to see and probably should just issue a statement to the person who is banned that they were indeed banned. If it were my choice I probably wouldn't even tell them why unless they write asking for a reason that they were banned. It should all be handled privately though.

It's interesting how this subject (or variants) come up every now and again. Should the ban's reason be used as a warning to others, or should it be kept private to avoid extra shame/punishment beyond the ban itself?

Personally, I think the ban is enough. The rules are there for all to see, and other than spambots, everyone I know of that was banned got a reason why when the ban came in - with specific link(s) to what was posted against the rules whenever possible. Makes things easier in case someone wants to argue the ban, after all.

I think they should give reasons why someone was banned and I also think they shouldn't delete posts but put offending or rule-breaking ones behind some sort of "click to see but be warned" wall.

There's an Orwellian quality to some threads when people are banned or post the wrong things. You can tell that something happened but its only on the fringes. You aren't really sure what happened or why it was so bad. Sometimes, even the explanations given are vague and can lead to confusion.

I believe the lack of transparency can have a chilling effect on speech.

It's not nearly as bad here as on some sites but the whole thing comes across less as "punish rule-breaking" and more as "enforce preferred ideology." Currently, in the wake of the Orlando mass murder of homosexuals by an Islamic radical, numerous sites are censoring speech in an attempt to prevent the linking of radical Islam with the crime. The banning and deletions happen only outside of "fringe" areas of those sites, such as Donald Trump-related fora, thus creating the illusion that the only ones linking the radical Islamic ideology with the crime is the so-called "far right" when the gunman himself proclaimed his beliefs were the reasons for the murders.

Now, nothing as political as this tends to be a thing here. I've been repeatedly amazed at how open the forums here are too free thought and expression. However, simply allowing mods to ban and delete without explanation inevitably leads to speech punishment because the mods have neither reason to explain their actions nor proper oversight. As a result, only the moral compasses of the mods themselves control their actions. Unfortunately, many people believe that speech censorship is not a bad thing at all. Mods often wave off concerns with "its a private website" or "we know what we're doing" but these justifications fail to get at the core reality that speech is being suppressed. There's also a disturbing tendency to justify things based on the idea that the speech suppression is necessary to protect others, as if differing opinions are inherently harmful to one side, and those who need protection are virtually always on the mod's side.

When mods have to explain their actions, and when there's sufficient transparency for others to review those actions, the vast majority of the time we'll all agree they made the right decision. Why? Simple: when you have to present a reason for an act that can be reviewed by others, you will try to be reasonable. Unreasonable actions will lead to questions which in turn can lead to being overruled. Thus, you have a fair system of rules properly maintained rather than an unjust system of rule by force.

I've seen websites shift over time from free expression and lively debate to lockstep mentality and all dissenters crushed under the iron rule of the mods. While people tend to say "if that's a problem, then go somewhere else" they fail to grasp that not every website is equal. The largest and most used websites tend toward dictatorship of mods and of one viewpoint over time. These sites also tend to have much more content than the other sites you could go to, at least before the iron fists eventually break the member's will to stick around.

So that's my long and serious take on the subject. Can you tell I'm a little serious about freedom of speech and thought?

It's interesting how this subject (or variants) come up every now and again. Should the ban's reason be used as a warning to others, or should it be kept private to avoid extra shame/punishment beyond the ban itself?

Personally, I think the ban is enough. The rules are there for all to see, and other than spambots, everyone I know of that was banned got a reason why when the ban came in - with specific link(s) to what was posted against the rules whenever possible. Makes things easier in case someone wants to argue the ban, after all.

But English what if cannot into read? Rules how to follow if cannot. Banned still do I rules if read cannot into?